[Editor’s Note: Kerry on NPR Today—

John Kerry will be interviewed today from Damascus, Syria on Day to Day with Alex Chadwick on NPR. He’ll be at the top of the show – check your local NPR station listings and be sure to tune in. UPDATE: Link to Audio]

---

JK spoke with David Gregory on the Today show this morning (transcript | video):

GREGORY: More troops would not do enough in your estimation to shore up Baghdad and at least give the Maliki government a fighting chance?

KERRY: Not without a fundamental political resolution. I think you could put 100,000 troops and you’re going to up the casualties, up the stakes, increase the violence and not get a resolution.

The fundamental resolution that I’ve heard in every country I’ve been to - I’ve been to Egypt - I met with President Mubarak; I’ve been to Jordan - met with King Abdullah yesterday; we’re here in Syria today; going to Israel from here; I was in Lebanon yesterday - everywhere people are saying, “You’ve got to have a comprehensive political reconciliation process.” And we’re here to explore whether that can be broader than it’s been in the past and we think it can.

[...]

That is the key, not troops. More troops will not resolve the problem of Iraq. And you won’t end the violence. What’ll happen is you’ll create a larger, more prominent target in the absence of the kind of political solution that’s needed.

  General Abizaid, the senior commander in the Middle East, made the same point per the New York Times today:

General Abizaid argues for a broader approach to Iraq than that of looking solely to putting out the fires in Baghdad.

“You have to internationalize the problem,” General Abizaid said. “You have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically. You just can’t apply a microscope on a particular problem in downtown Baghdad and a particular problem in downtown Kabul and say that somehow or another, if you throw enough military forces at it, that you are going to solve the broader issues in the region of extremism.”

[...]

“I think our structures for 21st-century security challenges need to adapt to this type of an enemy,” he said. “The 21st century really requires that we figure out how to get economic, diplomatic, political and military elements of power synchronized and coordinated against specific problems wherever they exist.”

Long before the Iraqi Study Group advocated a solution for Iraq that included negotiations with Iran and Syria, General Abizaid argued that combating Islamic extremism required a regional approach.

  <!-more-> Their point is buttressed by the Washington Post report yesterday that the Joint Chiefs unanimously oppose the “surge” concept.

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq.

[...]

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq - including al-Qaeda’s foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias - without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn—then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

Even the announcement of a time frame and mission - such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad - could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.

The idea of a much larger military deployment for a longer mission is virtually off the table, at least so far, mainly for logistics reasons, say officials familiar with the debate. Any deployment of 40,000 to 50,000 would force the Pentagon to redeploy troops who were scheduled to go home.

  As JK concluded on the show:

But nothing is going to resolve Iraq without this fundamental political reconciliation. You have a divide between Sunni and Shia. And you have criminal elements. You have ex-Baathist elements. You’ve just got an enormous historical cultural problem. And the only way to overcome it is with major assistance from outside countries and from us to get that political resolution.

  JK also highlighted one other crisis that merits immediate attention:

I think that—incidentally, if I can just say this to you, David, while everybody is focused on Iraq, there is a major crisis brewing that will have an impact on Iraq, on Israel and on the politics of the region in Lebanon. And Lebanon is an immediate crisis. It’s a two-week crisis, not a several-month crisis. And we think it is critical that there be greater focus.

  Not up on your Lebanese politics?

Check out the New York Times and Washington Post special coverage on Lebanon.

 

UPDATE: Tomorrow, Senator Kerry will be LIVE on the TODAY Show at 7:05 am EST from Damascus, Syria to discuss his trip to Iraq and the Middle East. We hope you all can tune in.

UPDATE 2: MSNBC Video of JK’s Interview with David Gregory on the Today Show

  JK has been busy this week. In Lebanon, he and Sen. Dodd met with a number of Lebanese leaders. The Boston Globe/AP reported:

Sen. John Kerry, on a visit to Lebanon Monday, called for moving away from “the ideologies of extremism” and urged political reconciliation among rival factions to resolve the country’s deepening political crisis.

Kerry and Senator Christopher Dodd met Monday with anti-Syrian Lebanese leaders as well as an ally of the militant group Hezbollah to discuss the crisis a day before the pair head to neighboring Syria.

U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, who is facing large street protests by the Hezbollah-led opposition to demand his resignation, briefed the Democratic lawmakers on his government’s efforts to deal with the crisis, the National News Agency reported.

The senators also met Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally. But no details of their talks were disclosed.

“We are very, very admiring of the courage of those political leaders who are looking for reconciliation,” Kerry told reporters after meeting Defense Minister Elias Murr. In an apparent reference to Hezbollah and its allies, he urged the parties to distance themselves from “the ideologies of extremism” to help promote a political solution.

<!-more-> After concluding their meetings in Lebanon, Senators Kerry and Dodd flew to Damascus where they paused to take a picture with the crew after their flight.

Per the Boston Globe, “The U.S. lawmakers are expected to hold talks with Assad, who is currently on a two-day visit to Moscow and is due back home on Wednesday.”

“The diplomatic push from Congress comes on the heels of a recommendation by a bipartisan panel that the U.S. engage Iran and Syria on the war in Iraq. Bush has expressed reluctance to seek help from Damascus on Iraq until the Syrians curb their support to radical Palestinian groups and to the Lebanese Hezbollah.”

But despite the well-publicized reluctance of the White House to consider any dialogue with the Syrian government, The Hartford Courant reports that Senator Dodd “will be armed with questions from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Dodd would not say what she wants to ask, only that “I asked [Rice] for specific questions and she gave them to me. I said I’d call her and tell her the answers to those questions,” Dodd said.”

 

Pamela Leavey at The Democratic Daily makes an interesting point:

Hmmm, for all the fussing and whining the Bush administration has been making about John Kerry’s visit to Syria, not to mention the right wing blogs as well, some one needs to ask why Condi did not try to discourage the visit. After all, she did know about the trip and in light of that it sure does make those complainers and whiners look rather petty, don’t you think?

  Pamela went onto highlight a quote from the Boston Globe:

By yesterday, the Boston Globe reports that “State Department officials seemed to soften their tone on the senators’ trips after criticizing them earlier in the week.”

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the department generally encourages members of Congress to travel abroad and report back.

“We encourage them to do that to get an appreciation for what the situation is on the ground, and, of course, we hear back from them,” he said. “That’s a positive thing. We want to understand what their views are.”

So, hey, what’s all that huffing and puffing about? After all, John Kerry and the other Senators visiting Syria, they are doing their jobs, right. Why, yes they are. No doubt the State Department will send a representative to Kerry’s meetings in Syria just like they did with Senator Nelson earlier in the week. One would think, as Dan McLaughlin, a Nelson spokesman said, that “Clearly, the administration uses such trips to gather vital information.”

In a separate post which has attracted attention elsewhere, Pamela took on Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald and pointed out what she regards as his deliberate “propensity to tout the BushCo war is good mantra and twist John Kerry’s record.”

  Blogger beachmom weighed in with a diary that hit the recommended list at dailykos.com. In response to the White House comment “that trips to Syria by U.S. lawmakers are a public relations victory for a government that is thwarting democratic reform in the Middle East.”, she retorted:

Thwarting democratic reform? They’re still holding onto the idea that Iraq is the democratic reform they want to spread around the Middle East? Delusional doesn’t begin to describe their divorce from reality.

  <!-more-> Matt Browner-Hamlin has focused his wish for the holiday on Sen. Kerry and Dodd’s trip to the Middle East:

Leaving aside Kerry and Dodd’s admirable and much needed efforts to promote peace and adult foreign policy dealings with countries like Syria, I want to see both of these men take the experiences, conversations, and observations they’re having on this trip and come home committed to stepping forward as leaders on foreign policy, specifically with regards to Iraq.   Earlier today Atrios noted that the men and women running for the Democratic presidential nomination are going to step forward and become the most visible representatives of the Democratic Party to America. Their status as candidates affords them a pulpit unlike any other, save the one that is their end-goal. This holiday season I find myself wishing that these two men (though I’d settle for one) come back from the Middle East with the willingness to use their position as presidential candidates as an opportunity to make Americans understand the urgency with which we must change course in Iraq. I want their experiences on this trip to wake them up to the reality that this war must end and fast.

He goes on to acknowledge that “Kerry has done more to push withdrawal than Dodd, who is still on a twelve to eighteen month timetable for a drawdown.” and extend his wish that either one or both of these potential presidential candidates give this “gift… to all Americans.”   Sounds like a great gift idea, Matt. Thanks for sharing it.

  Dave Johnson and James Boyce posted an item at Huffington Post that eloquently expands on points made in our post, Not Anymore.

It’s worth checking out the “Strategy of Sell and Smear” that they outline—definitely provides some food for thought.

  Someone else that we’ve mentioned on ‘JK on the blogs’ before has been highlighted at FireDogLake:

Taylor Marsh has a fantastic interview with a freelance photojournalist who is embedded with a National Guard unit in Afghanistan. Really amazing stuff — Taylor does a superb job with the interview, and their discussion is one that is both incredibly informative and also quite haunting.

Check out Taylor’s podcast with Scott Kesterson and take a peek at the video clip he’s posted at HuffPo about a special project called Operation Drumstick.

 

The CNN Wire reports:

Kerry, Dodd meet with Iraqi PM

BAGHDAD (CNN)—Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met Sunday with visiting U.S. Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., his office said.

The prime minister briefed the lawmakers on political developments in Iraq and the reconciliation process.

They in turn reiterated the support of both Republicans and Democrats to the political process and stressed the importance of success in Iraq, the prime minister’s office said. (Posted 9:22 a.m.)

  <!-more-> The Boston Globe reported on yesterday’s activities:

“Today was very informative and very helpful in crystallizing some of my thoughts insofar as what we can negotiate … and what needs to be accomplished,” Kerry told The Associated Press by telephone.

During his stop at Camp Warhorse in Diyala, northeast of the capital, Kerry said he also met with local Iraqi officials responsible for one of the most sectarian-charged areas of the country.

Kerry declined to elaborate on how the visit had affected his views on the situation in Iraq because his meetings continue Sunday. He is scheduled to meet with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for a firsthand assessment on “what’s possible in the political dynamics.” “I certainly learned more about what the troops can or can’t achieve,” he said.

Kerry, a sharp critic of Bush administration policies in Iraq, said the most important challenge now was to achieve “whatever success is possible.”

Kerry arrived in Iraq after visits to Egypt and Jordan. He also plans to visit Syria for talks with President Bashar Assad and travel to Lebanon, Israel and the West Bank.

 

Jamison Foser at Media Matters has a lengthy post titled “GOP media lemming alert” that highlights some points that we’ve seen discussed elsewhere.

The 2008 presidential campaign may well be decided by the way the news media cover the candidates over the next few months. The ability and willingness of the political media and pundit class to affix narratives to each candidate that shape subsequent news coverage - and voter attitudes - has been repeatedly discussed here and elsewhere.

These narratives tend to have a few things in common:

• The narratives about progressives tend to be negative—Al Gore was a liar and a wimp, Howard Dean was crazy, John Kerry was a flip-flopping wimp, etc.). • The narratives about conservatives tend to be positive (John McCain is a straight-talking maverick, Rudy Giuliani is “America’s Mayor,” etc.) • The narratives about progressives (our focus today) are often based in large part on the media’s endless repetition of snarky comments, stories, and anecdotes about purported personal qualities. • Progressives and journalists often blame the victims of these narratives, chalking them up to inept candidates and campaign staff. No matter how many different progressives get unfairly defined by the media as soft and dishonest and ineffectual, too many people refuse to hold journalists accountable.

The bad news is that this week brought confirmation - as if any were necessary - that the problem wasn’t with Gore, Kerry, Dean, and the Clintons: that any and every progressive is going to face the same relentless and petty caricatures at the hands of a news media that, however unwittingly, promote right-wing talking points and themes at every turn.

<!-more-> Mr. Foser then goes onto to examine the chronology of the media and the pundits including Chris Matthews and Ed Rogers who have mocked Barack Obama’s name as well as Jeff Greenfield’s horrific mocking of his appearance. He points out that

After Greenfield’s comments drew the wrath of progressives, he claimed he had simply been kidding—and lashed out at his critics, blaming the “hair-trigger instincts” of bloggers and “partisans” who “routinely assume the worst about their adversaries” and complaining about “a tendency to find malice aforethought.” Greenfield suggested that those unruly progressive bloggers should have taken a lesson from “the habits of the Mainstream Media.”

Greenfield’s lecture didn’t go over very well, and for good reason. As Bob Somerby pointed out, the “mainstream media” has peddled silly - and damaging - garbage like this for years. [...]Most of all, Greenfield simply isn’t in a position to lecture anyone else about the “habits” of journalism. Not until he apologizes for his role in doctoring a video clip of Hillary Clinton to portray her as a liar. Perhaps not even then.

Greenfield may not like it, but that criticism he took from progressives is the good news of the week. There is a growing - though still insufficient - recognition among progressives of how these snarky, silly, ridiculous storylines the media peddle about progressives skew public opinion and damage the country—and a willingness to do something about it.

That wasn’t the case in the 2004 presidential campaign. A look back at how thoroughly two similar incidents came to define John Kerry and John Edwards is useful in preparing for what is to come.

Mr. Foser then details how the mainstream media beginning with the New York Times picked up their verbal cues for ridicule from the Bush White House and continued to use those cues even a year later, spurious though they were. (The entire article is worth reading if you have the time.)

Mark Barrett of The Premise cautions that progressives had best pay attention to what’s happening.

In the meantime the press and the GOP are going to work, yukking it up with jokes that everyone knows aren’t true – like how Al Gore invented the internet and John Kerry lied about throwing his medals away.

Funny stuff. Hilarious. And deadly.

Then again, if Barack Obama eventually succumbs to a collective political effort to tie him to crazy Middle-eastern leaders simply because of the color of his skin, those progressives who are currently championing him can savage him themselves for not having fought back hard enough, or against suddenly overwhelming odds. And if that seems impossible right now, just ask Arianna Huffington about Ned Lamont.

Markos summed it up well this week in his protest about Jeff Greenfield’s behavior:

We find “malice aforethought” because we’ve seen the media (CNN included) trash Gore, then trash Kerry, based on absolutely ridiculous bull**. And we won’t let them get away with “jokes” comparing Democrats to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Saddam Hussein. Not anymore.

We’re all too familiar with this type of behavior. Here’s a tip ‘o the hat to those people who are clueing others into the destructive “jokes” and memes perpetuated by the pundits and their “common wisdom”.

 

As blogger Ron Chusid points out at the Liberal Values blog

“Finally we got a story that means something. Kerry is going back to the Middle East.”

AP/Yahoo reports on JK’s meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak:

“I think it’s important to talk and have dialogue, but you don’t give up your principles and you don’t make deals that are against your larger interest,” Kerry told reporters after talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

“Syria needs to understand that and Iran needs to understand that, but I think it’s important to begin a discussion,” added Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

Kerry, who is considering a second bid for the U.S. presidency, cited the example of late President Ronald Reagan calling the Soviet Union “the evil empire” but not hesitating to negotiate with then Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.

 

At the outset of JK’s trip, the Boston Globe reported that JK was leaving:

for a nine-day trip through Iraq and five other Middle Eastern nations, as he seeks to hone a regional approach to ending the Iraq war while entering the final stage of his deliberations about another run for president.

Kerry said he hopes to use the regional trip, his first there in nearly year, to meet with political leaders and US troops in Iraq about solutions to the Iraq conflict. His meetings will include a session with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a country that the Iraq Study Group recommended should be included in direct talks about the future of Iraq.

“The Mideast policy as a whole is in tatters, and the situation is getting more dangerous, and there is a lot that’s at play,” said Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat. “This is the most compelling and important issue on the table today: the war on terror, how it would more properly be fought.”

In addition to Iraq and Syria, Kerry will visit Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel, and he will meet with the head of state in all of those countries. He said he plans to venture outside the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad to talk to US troops stationed in more volatile parts of the country, including the Sunni Triangle.

<!-more-> Matt Browner-Hamlin mused about the trip on his blog at the Baltimore Group:

Analysts saw the senators’ visit as the start of a possible U.S. thaw toward Syria. White House officials are said to be divided over whether to engage Syria and Iran, so it’s hard to say what the senators’ trip could mean, said Mackenzie Eaglen, national security analyst at Washington’s Heritage Foundation. “It could be purely educational,” she said.

In either case, Dodd and Kerry’s decision to talk with Syria is a diplomatic step that the Bush administration has refused to make. I don’t know what the subject of Dodd and Kerry’s talks with Syria will be, but the Iraq Study Group recommended the US engage Syria and the Bush administration has flatly refused to this point. Dodd and Kerry are both on the Foreign Relations Committee and are clearly showing what Democratic leadership on foreign affairs looks like.

I wouldn’t underestimate the potential for positive steps coming out of this trip. For one, it reminds the governments of the Middle East that the United States, contra Bush, is not George W. Bush. There are profound differences over how the US crafts our foreign policy and not all American leaders think sitting Syria and Iran in the proverbial corner with a dunces’ cap is the best strategy. Presenting a liberal vision for foreign policy with governments that have been shunned by the US for the last few years is a step forward. That said, any progress Dodd and Kerry make will move forward only if the Bush administration is willing to pick up where they leave off.

 

Bloggers and the Boston Globe both took notice of JK teaming up with Al Gore on the subject of the environment.

JK sent out an email about weekend house-parties organized via Moveon featuring Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

The complete text of the email is below. In addition to the letter, JK connected with Al at a fundraiser organized by Tipper Gore for The Climate Project, an environment group founded by Tipper and Al Gore.

Linda Matchan of the Boston Globe noted that the fundraiser drew an “amalgam of guests: Senator John Kerry; Al Gore, the former vice president; interior designers; the reigning Miss Rhode Island; environmentalists; art buffs; and a lot of people who seemed to like tortoises.”

  <!-more-> Letter from John Kerry

I admire Al Gore for his outspoken activism in the fight against global warming.

In the last year, his “An Inconvenient Truth” has brought the science of global climate change to millions of Americans in a dramatic and persuasive way. Al was an early leader and a visionary on climate change — and if he had not just been elected but been inaugurated as president, America today would be the world’s leading advocate, not the world’s leading opponent, of preventing climate change.

Like you, I share Al Gore’s grave concern about the environmental threat posed by global climate change. Teresa and I go way back with Al in our engagement on this gathering crisis. Now, within the next decade, if we don’t deal with global warming, our children and grandchildren will have to deal with global catastrophe. It is time to stop debating fiction writers, oil executives and flat-earth politicians, and actually do something.

That’s why I’m asking the johnkerry.com community to join MoveOn, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters and others in sponsoring nationwide house parties crucial to our environmental future. It’s all built around the DVD release of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.”

On Saturday, Americans will get together at house parties all over the country, watch the film on DVD, have a national conference call to discuss next steps, and start seriously mobilizing people. Participants will get a chance to talk to Al Gore and ask him questions.

Can you attend a screening in your town on Saturday, December 16? Click below to get started.

Find a house party near you

You know the underlying message of Al Gore’s movie. It’s not just that global warming is shaping up as a catastrophe of enormous dimensions. It’s that, together, we have the ability to stop this disaster — if we act now.

Saturday’s house parties are a great opportunity. This massive effort to organize and spread the word about “An Inconvenient Truth” is one of the best chances we’ve had in a long time to demonstrate how serious the problem is — and how serious we are about pushing Congress toward real solutions. More on that later — in this new Congress the johnkerry.com community will have our own bipartisan opportunity to make Washington stop spinning and start solving this problem.

There’s no doubt that “An Inconvenient Truth” has struck a responsive chord. The DVD of the movie sold more than a million copies in its first week. When strong leaders like Al Gore step forward to educate and organize people around vitally important issues, they deserve our full support.

Help spread the word.

Find a house party near you

Thanks for taking part in this crucial undertaking.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

P.S. We may have to wait to January until the new Democratic Congress convenes to force elected leaders to take real action on global warming. But, we can start organizing public support for real leadership on this vitally important issue right now. Let’s get started.

 

Here’s a hattip to the blogs that have joined in spreading the word about the house-parties including automatblog, Liberal Values, Platial, and The Democratic Daily.

 

A bunch of bloggers showed up in Boston to celebrate John Kerry’s birthday this past Monday. [Which begs the question, do bloggers travel in bunches, gaggles, flocks, or herds? Many a reference to cat-herding was made.]

They toured Boston, getting a good look at all the beautiful Christmas lights on the Boston Common. In the famous Old South Meeting House, they participated in the lively 233rd re-enactment of the town hall meeting which led to the Boston Tea Party.

And let us not forget the consumption along the way of dim sum and plenty of local fish, plus a couple of bottles of Sam Adams along the way.

The Boston Herald noted the event as well:

Kerry, who celebrated his birthday Monday, held a bash in Boston for bloggers from as far away as Mississippi and California to wish him well as he mulls another run.

“We wanted to stay connected and say that we’re still here and we’re still listening,” said blogger Terri Buchman, who helped organize the party at Kerry’s downtown office.

The 43 bloggers in attendance all supported Kerry’s 2004 bid on sites such as “Democratic Underground.”

[...]

“These are people who care, who are creative, and who know the value of people powered politics,” Kerry said. “Over the last two years, they’ve had my back in the fight on the Alito nomination . . . and in the lonely fight (U.S. Sen.) Russ Feingold and I waged to change course in Iraq.”

<!-more-> And last but not least, the bloggers partied with Senator Kerry and supporters from across Massachusetts at Ned Devine’s in Quincy Market, with birthday cakes for every taste.

Mahalo  

 

Bob Herbert of the New York Times commented on the Iraq Study Group report yesterday:

On Wednesday, as if the release of the Iraq Study Group report needed some form of dramatic punctuation, 11 more American G.I.’s were killed in this misbegotten war that just about everyone, except perhaps the president, now sees as a complete and utter debacle.

[...]

The primary value of the Baker-Hamilton report is that it embodies, in clear and explicit language, the consensus that has emerged in the U.S. about the current state of the war. It’s not so much a blueprint for action as a recognition of reality.

“The level of violence is high and growing,” the report says. “There is great suffering, and the daily lives of many Iraqis show little or no improvement. Pessimism is pervasive.”

With the situation in Iraq deteriorating, and support for the war in the U.S. having all but collapsed, the only real question on the table is how long the U.S. is going to drag out its inevitable pullout of combat forces. And the inevitable moral question that is inextricably linked to that slowly evolving set of circumstances is how to justify the lives that will be lost between now and the final day of our departure.

There is something agonizingly tragic about soldiers dying in a war that has already been lost.

The scale of the debacle is breathtaking. According to the study group: “In some parts of Iraq — notably in Baghdad — sectarian cleansing is taking place. The United Nations estimates that 1.6 million are displaced within Iraq, and up to 1.8 million Iraqis have fled the country.”

[...]

The study group found that, among other things, the Iraqi Army units “lack leadership … lack equipment … lack personnel … [and] lack logistics and support.”

“Soldiers are given leave liberally and face no penalties for absence without leave,” the report said. “Unit readiness rates are low, often at 50 percent or less.”

The report went on: “They lack the ability to sustain their operations, the capability to transport supplies and troops, and the capacity to provide their own indirect fire support, close-air support, technical intelligence and medical evacuation.”

Other than that, they’re fine.

So what’s next? The Bush administration has lost all of its credibility on the war. What is needed now are leaders with the courage to insist, perhaps at the risk of their reputations and careers, that it is wrong to continue sending fresh bodies after those already lost, to continue asking young, healthy American troops to head into the combat zone, perhaps for their third or fourth tour, to fight in a war the public no longer supports.

What’s next is that good people work together at developing a solution.

As JK said about the Iraq Study Group:

Not one more American soldier should die because politicians in Iraq or in the United States are unwilling to face reality and change direction. We need to change course now. Today, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group issued an urgent call for a new direction in Iraq. Their report acknowledges the futility of the current policy. If the Administration will accept its recommendations, this report can provide core elements of the way forward.

 

The Editorial Board of the Wichita Eagle, Wichita, KS, has a blog where one of the editors posted this:

Kerry’s words still carry sting of truth

Eleven more U.S. soldiers died one day last week in Iraq in five separate incidents.

You have to ask: For what? For a botched policy that few of our nation’s “leaders” of either party would admit until recently is a colossal failure?

Sen. John Kerry’s courageous words challenging our leaders at the end of the Vietnam War sound more relevant than ever: “How can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

Posted by Randy Scholfield

<!-more-> David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo made a comment that set Mark Barrett at the Premise off in a lengthy post about JK. We tried to pick an excerpt but it was futile. Enjoy:

For the past four years now, the best voice on Iraq has been John Kerry. Starting with his floor statement on the Iraq War Resolution vote, through his opposition to the launch of the war before Bush pulled the trigger, right up to today, nobody has been more consistently accurate and engaged about what to do about Iraq than John Kerry.

But we can’t say that. We can’t notice that one person, again and again, gets it right.

Why?

Well, to begin with, he voted for the IWR. In the shorthand used by the brain-dead people who cover politics, that’s equivalent to voting for the war even though there was no actual vote to start the war. George Bush pulled the trigger on his own. But that’s too complicated for the pundits, so they simply say that John Kerry voted for the war, and of course anybody who voted for this war isn’t somebody we should listen to.

There’s also the fact that he lost to George Bush in 2004. Never mind the context, the Republican prostitution of 9/11, the cynical $300 tax cuts handed out to every voter, the slanderous attacks on Senator Kerry’s war record, and most importantly the wholesale lies told by the Bush administration about their own failing war policy. John Kerry lost the election, so that means he’s a loser. And we don’t take advice from losers in this country. We take advice from winners like George Bush.

More recently of course there’s the botched joke. Never mind that it was a mugging by the Bush administration and a piling on by the press that turned the story into a front-page saga. How dare John Kerry defend his good name? We don’t take advice from people who aren’t willing to have their noses rubbed in filth whenever the President and the press decide they need a break from confronting the realities of the Iraq War.

Then there’s the 2008 election, and how other candidates might not fare too well in comparison with Senator Kerry’s engagement on the issue. Hillary Clinton spent most of the past three years in hiding. Barack Obama didn’t have to vote on the IWR, but he and his disciples will tell you he was against the war from the beginning. Same goes for Al Gore. Those are all people we need to protect, and we can’t protect them if we notice that John Kerry has been right about Iraq while they’ve been playing politics.

Maybe the worst crime John Kerry has committed, however, is that he’s answered the questions people have asked in the context of the moment. And that’s a very serious crime. That’s a flip-flopper’s attitude, unlike the cool-hand certainty and unshakeable resolve of our victorious decider, George Bush. Unbelievably, John Kerry keeps modifying his advice as the facts change on the ground, which is obviously a sign of weakness and indecision. Why is it so hard for John Kerry to do what George Bush did and pick one inviolate course of action that’s perfect for every possible situation?

Finally, we can’t notice that John Kerry gets it right more than he gets it wrong because we don’t want him to run for president again. He had his chance, and now it’s time to pick somebody new that can help us forget about how right John Kerry was when we decided not to elect him in 2004. He’s not saying that himself, of course, because he’s focused on bringing the troops home and finding a political solution to the problem. But most of us here in the United States really haven’t felt the effects of the war, so we’re much more concerned with how we can get a good, guilt-free night of sleep. And we can’t do that if John Kerry doesn’t go away and let us forget.

So let’s just keep saying that nobody’s willing to have a serious discussion about Iraq, so we don’t have to notice that John Kerry has been having a serious discussion for four years, and getting it right all along. Let’s just keep saying there’s nobody who knows what’s going on or what to do about it, because that means we don’t have to know what’s going on or what to do about it.

And isn’t that the easy way out of Iraq we’ve all been looking for?

   —Mark Barrett

 

There’s some entertaining reading in the comments section at Media Matters on this post that notes that Andrea Mitchell is a little bit of a flip-flopper in her descriptions of politicians changing course when confronted with facts that alter their recommended approach to a given issue.

Look for the list of Bush “flip-flops” in particular.

Astronautagogo posted an interesting diary at dailykos titled “Never Thought I’d Say It: I Might Vote For Kerry (Deux)“

I never thought I’d say it. I couldn’t stand Kerry POTUS candidate part one. He didn’t have the nuts when it mattered most, he voted for the worst mistake in American history, he was too cozy with special interests, he couldn’t speak clearly on the war, his hairdo was hilarious, he physically resembled Count Chocula.

However, this isn’t who John Kerry is anymore….well, aside from the hairdo & resemblance to Count Chocula part. In short, Kerry got Gore’d. He’s seen the light. His conscience has fully awakened. He’s gotten what has seemed to be unwavering moral guts, he’s tougher, stronger, leaner & meaner. Since Kerry’s failed POTUS bid, he’s shown more moral clarity & courage in his pinky than HRC, Bayh, Richardson, Obama, Vilsack & Dodd all combined.

...Since November of 04' Kerry has been earning a well deserved respect I've never had for him.

He led the fight to filibuster extremist supreme court nominees, he was one of two senators who actually REALLY stood with Ned Lamont, he [was] one of the only senators to specifically and boldly take on the Bush Iraq strategies head on (Lie & Die), he fought harder than anyone in Senate for a Dem Congressional takeover, he called Rush a doughy coward, and well….you all know the rest.

I never thought I’d say it but, I like John Kerry part deux…alot.

There’s also a poll in this diary and some lively dialogue in the comments which you may find interesting. Check it out.

 

Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report took issue with Paul Krugman’s op-ed, “They Told You So”, in a piece titled, “On Iraq, giving credit where credit is due”. Krugman listed those who he recognizes as having spoken out against the war in Iraq from the beginning. Steve decries his conclusion:

Krugman concludes that those who failed to raise important questions about the war, and those who acted as a cheerleader at the time, should no longer be taken seriously “when he or she talks about matters of national security.” Personally, I wouldn’t go nearly this far.

In 2002, the notion of a war in Iraq was wrong, but it wasn’t ridiculous. For that matter, there were plenty of credible people (including John Kerry, for example) who failed to foresee the president screwing things up this badly. That was a different mistake, but it hardly means we shouldn’t take these people seriously on matters of national security forever more.

It’s far different than, say, John McCain and Joe Lieberman, who not only failed in 2002 but who continue to lead the cheers for the president’s tragic policy to this day.

There were some smart people, with good intentions, who got this issue wrong four years ago. Those who got it right deserve kudos, but isn’t it a bit much to dismiss others who have since come to their senses?

Pamela Leavey at The Democratic Daily comments on the gossipy New York Post article about a dinner at JK’s townhouse, saying:

These days, John Kerry is focused on the situation in Iraq, a rumored trip to the Mid East, and the upcoming new session of Congress which promises to be a doozy now that Dems have regained control. So, it’s the holiday season and John Kerry gathered some friends together for a “thank you” dinner. That makes sense…

I suspect when the time is right, Kerry will make his decision on ‘08. For now, he’s not concerned with the polls that “polls aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.” Instead he’s focused on doing the job he was elected to do, and enjoying an evening with friends. Gossip that.

She also noted Thomas Friedman’s conversion to JK’s way of thinking as highlighted in his appearance on Imus in the Morning and by a follow-up op-ed in the New York Times.